C
chasjohn
Guest
How does this quote square with the assertion that there is an unbroken succession from the present Pope Benedict back to Peter?
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
Considering the circumstances at the time, it actually makes perfect sense for Peter to put an unknown into his Chair, since all of the Apostles were already under arrest, if not dead, by that time.
Being an unknown gave St. Linus the time that he needed to select his own successor, and to at least show up for work a few times before being martyred, himself.
J
jmcrae
Guest
There is no contradiction. The Orthodox Churches have never negated the Sacrament of Holy Orders; they have always followed the Catholic procedures, which means that although they have no Pope, their Bishops still have authority to ordain other Bishops - as I understand it, their Patriarchs can trace their lineage back in an unbroken line at least to the Catholic Church prior to 1050 AD, if not all the way back to the Apostles themselves - and like I say, they have never altered the Sacrament itself in any way that affects its efficacy, so it’s still valid.
P
Petergee
Guest
Simply because his letters are addressed to people who are ALREADY baptised. His point in 1 Cor 1 is that it doesn’t matter WHO personally baptised the Corinthians, but that they were baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, NOT in the name of the person who baptised them. He’s certainly **not **saying “baptism is not important” or “baptism is not part of the gospel”.4th statementAlthough this is not specifically what we are discussing it is what many churches believe and follow including mine.
Ordinances. Although the subject of baptism is prominent in the New Testament, it is not a major emphasis in Pauline theology. The verb baptizo is used eighty times in the New Testament, but Paul uses it only sixteen times and only eleven of those refer to water baptism (three of them in Acts). Furthermore, he uses the verb six times in his explanation that Christ did not send him to baptize (1 Cor. 1:13–17); thus, apart from that reference, Paul refers to water baptism only twice in the epistles (1 Cor. 15:29). In his explanation to the Corinthians Paul makes it clear that baptism is not a part of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17–18). Paul seems to emphasize the baptism of the Spirit more than water baptism (cf. Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 10:2; 12:13; Gal. 3:27).
The bolded words are yours (or actually the words of the person whose tract you cut and paste them from) NOT St Paul’s, and it is very dishonest to present them as such. What St Paul actually said was, “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1 Cor 11:29, RSV) No suggestion of “symbols” or “reminders”! And not just “disruption”, but damnation!
And I have no idea what any of your lengthy cut-and-pasted tracts have to do with the subject of this thread.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hey,
I was just putiing out what most protestants believe about the church and the organization of it. I have another piece of info. that would fit this discussion better.
I just thought I would give some background before I put the info. out.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
I asked a fellow Biblicist if we(as non-catholic christians) have Apostolic Succession: Below is is answer:
Technically, a “Biblicist” is one who takes a literal approach to the Scriptures and believes them to be the written Word of God and, therefore, the ultimate, divine authority for the believer’s rule of faith and practice. It’s not a “religion” which one traces back to certain founders or leaders.
The true faith is not a religious faith, but a personal faith in what God has revealed through His Word concerning His Son and the divine redemption which comes through His sacrificial work on the cross. And this faith goes all the way back to Gen. 3:15 which, after the fall of mankind, God first spoke of and anticipated the “Seed of the woman,” a Redeemer who would come into the world. He being called the “Seed of the woman” alludes to His future, virgin birth.
God then chose the descendants of Seth as the line to bring in this Redeemer, preserved it through Noah, and after the flood chose Abraham, making a covenant with him stating that through him “all the families of the earth would be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3). In other words, through him would come the promised Redeemer, the “Seed of the Woman” spoke of back in the Garden after the fall.
From Abraham’s descendants Isaac and Jacob, God formed a nation (Israel) through Jacob’s twelve sons who became the twelve tribes of Jacob. From those tribes He chose the tribe of Judah to be the kingly line, and within the tribe of Judah He chose one family, the family of David. And God made a covenant with David stating that one of his descendants would receive a throne and a kingdom, and that earthly throne and kingdom would endure forever before Him (see 2 Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 89:20-37).
To a descendant of David God sent the angel Gabriel and told her (Mary) that she would bear a Son and “the Lord God would give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Lk. 1:32-33). Israel called this promised one the “Messiah,” “the anointed one.”
But Israel, as a nation, rejected their King/Messiah and the promised, Davidic Kingdom was postponed (it will be established on earth at the 2nd Advent of Christ). Instead of receiving a Kingdom, Israel’s King, by the Providence of God, became the world’s Redeemer through His sacrificial work on the cross. And instead of setting up His Kingdom on earth, the Son of God returned, bodily, to His Father’s throne in heaven there to function as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate before the Father. And starting with the “foundation” of His Apostles (Eph. 2:20-22) He is now, to this present day, building His Church (Matt. 16:18), calling it out from individual Jews and Gentiles in each generation who believe in Him for salvation. His Church being made up of every true believer baptized into the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit since Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 12:13).
This is the faith of a Biblicist. A faith that traces its roots through the revealed, written Word of God, not through men. That rests in the promises of God, not the traditions of men. That focuses on the Person of Jesus Christ and His redemptive work on the cross on their behalf, not a religious institution headquartered in the city of Rome fueled by its sacerdotal/sacramental system.
Romanism teaches that the main reason the Son came into this world was to establish a Church, having appointed Peter its “head.” It then claims that Peter was the first “Pope” of the church of Rome and he appointed a “successor” after him, and his “successor” appointed another after him, and so on, down to this present “Pope.” Each being the “head of the Church” Jesus allegedly came to establish.
to be continued
I asked a fellow Biblicist if we(as non-catholic christians) have Apostolic Succession: Below is is answer:
Technically, a “Biblicist” is one who takes a literal approach to the Scriptures and believes them to be the written Word of God and, therefore, the ultimate, divine authority for the believer’s rule of faith and practice. It’s not a “religion” which one traces back to certain founders or leaders.
The true faith is not a religious faith, but a personal faith in what God has revealed through His Word concerning His Son and the divine redemption which comes through His sacrificial work on the cross. And this faith goes all the way back to Gen. 3:15 which, after the fall of mankind, God first spoke of and anticipated the “Seed of the woman,” a Redeemer who would come into the world. He being called the “Seed of the woman” alludes to His future, virgin birth.
God then chose the descendants of Seth as the line to bring in this Redeemer, preserved it through Noah, and after the flood chose Abraham, making a covenant with him stating that through him “all the families of the earth would be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3). In other words, through him would come the promised Redeemer, the “Seed of the Woman” spoke of back in the Garden after the fall.
From Abraham’s descendants Isaac and Jacob, God formed a nation (Israel) through Jacob’s twelve sons who became the twelve tribes of Jacob. From those tribes He chose the tribe of Judah to be the kingly line, and within the tribe of Judah He chose one family, the family of David. And God made a covenant with David stating that one of his descendants would receive a throne and a kingdom, and that earthly throne and kingdom would endure forever before Him (see 2 Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 89:20-37).
To a descendant of David God sent the angel Gabriel and told her (Mary) that she would bear a Son and “the Lord God would give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Lk. 1:32-33). Israel called this promised one the “Messiah,” “the anointed one.”
But Israel, as a nation, rejected their King/Messiah and the promised, Davidic Kingdom was postponed (it will be established on earth at the 2nd Advent of Christ). Instead of receiving a Kingdom, Israel’s King, by the Providence of God, became the world’s Redeemer through His sacrificial work on the cross. And instead of setting up His Kingdom on earth, the Son of God returned, bodily, to His Father’s throne in heaven there to function as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate before the Father. And starting with the “foundation” of His Apostles (Eph. 2:20-22) He is now, to this present day, building His Church (Matt. 16:18), calling it out from individual Jews and Gentiles in each generation who believe in Him for salvation. His Church being made up of every true believer baptized into the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit since Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 12:13).
This is the faith of a Biblicist. A faith that traces its roots through the revealed, written Word of God, not through men. That rests in the promises of God, not the traditions of men. That focuses on the Person of Jesus Christ and His redemptive work on the cross on their behalf, not a religious institution headquartered in the city of Rome fueled by its sacerdotal/sacramental system.
Romanism teaches that the main reason the Son came into this world was to establish a Church, having appointed Peter its “head.” It then claims that Peter was the first “Pope” of the church of Rome and he appointed a “successor” after him, and his “successor” appointed another after him, and so on, down to this present “Pope.” Each being the “head of the Church” Jesus allegedly came to establish.
to be continued
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
continued from last post
But the Word of God reveals that only ONE Man is, and ever was, Head of the Church, who is not an Apostle, nor a Bishop (Pope), or Patriarch, but Christ Himself:
Eph. 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself {being} the Savior of the body.
Col. 1:18 “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”
Rome’s boastful claim not only has great Scriptural problems but historical as well. Since there is no historical proof that Peter was even in Rome, much less functioned there as its “Bishop” for 25 years before his death. Tradition puts his death there, but that too is based only on tradition, having no historical documents that actually contain eyewitness testimony. And we do know that the church at Rome began with a board of elders governing it, not a single, authoritative Bishop (Pope/Patriarch). A type of Church government which was a much later development in both the East and the West.
Romanism is not a Biblically based faith, but a traditionally based religion. And its leadership would be the first to admit it. The Scriptures take a subordinate role to their traditions, and the interpretation of the Scriptures (as well as their traditions) are subject to its “Magesterium,” its teaching authority, which they, traditionally, predicate infallible.
Based on its works oriented salvation, Romanism cannot produce a saving faith amongst its devotees. It’s “faith” is focused on, and rests in, the church hierarchy itself (which Roman Catholics call their “mother”) and the authority it claims Christ gave to it to forgive sins and bestow (sacramentally) the so-called “graces” that will bring a “Catholic” to salvation and the hope of eternal life. No Roman Catholic believes, or is allowed to believe, he HAS eternal life now, contrary to Christ’s own words and the words of the Apostles. If any are saved within that institution they are saved not because of it, but in spite of it.
Man-made institutions are traced back to their founders, but “the faith” of a true believer, the faith of a true Biblicist, is not an institutional faith, but a living, abiding faith in the Word of God itself. A very ancient faith which existed long before that religious institution ever developed over in Rome during the Middle Ages.
The Anabaptists were a people who did not submit to the religious dictates of the Roman church but held to the “simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).
I hope this helps,
But the Word of God reveals that only ONE Man is, and ever was, Head of the Church, who is not an Apostle, nor a Bishop (Pope), or Patriarch, but Christ Himself:
Eph. 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself {being} the Savior of the body.
Col. 1:18 “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”
Rome’s boastful claim not only has great Scriptural problems but historical as well. Since there is no historical proof that Peter was even in Rome, much less functioned there as its “Bishop” for 25 years before his death. Tradition puts his death there, but that too is based only on tradition, having no historical documents that actually contain eyewitness testimony. And we do know that the church at Rome began with a board of elders governing it, not a single, authoritative Bishop (Pope/Patriarch). A type of Church government which was a much later development in both the East and the West.
Romanism is not a Biblically based faith, but a traditionally based religion. And its leadership would be the first to admit it. The Scriptures take a subordinate role to their traditions, and the interpretation of the Scriptures (as well as their traditions) are subject to its “Magesterium,” its teaching authority, which they, traditionally, predicate infallible.
Based on its works oriented salvation, Romanism cannot produce a saving faith amongst its devotees. It’s “faith” is focused on, and rests in, the church hierarchy itself (which Roman Catholics call their “mother”) and the authority it claims Christ gave to it to forgive sins and bestow (sacramentally) the so-called “graces” that will bring a “Catholic” to salvation and the hope of eternal life. No Roman Catholic believes, or is allowed to believe, he HAS eternal life now, contrary to Christ’s own words and the words of the Apostles. If any are saved within that institution they are saved not because of it, but in spite of it.
Man-made institutions are traced back to their founders, but “the faith” of a true believer, the faith of a true Biblicist, is not an institutional faith, but a living, abiding faith in the Word of God itself. A very ancient faith which existed long before that religious institution ever developed over in Rome during the Middle Ages.
The Anabaptists were a people who did not submit to the religious dictates of the Roman church but held to the “simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).
I hope this helps,
M
mrs_abbott
Guest
She knows.Don’t forget that the Canon of Scripture came from the Church.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
Actually as I have been reading church history I think it might Actually be before the 800’s–There doesnt seem to be an exact date of when doctrine started to change–I guess it just crept in very slowly. Ill have to look into it better.
S
sterryfamily
Guest
How does it matter whether you or I see it as reasonable? It is clear, by the writings of the early Christians, that this is what the apostles taught them.
S
sterryfamily
Guest
YesHi,
Actually as I have been reading church history I think it might Actually be before the 800’s–There doesnt seem to be an exact date of when doctrine started to change–I guess it just crept in very slowly. Ill have to look into it better.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi Sterry,
That is the thing it is not crystal clear that that is what the Apostles taught.
I will assume your yes meant you want me to look into it further.
S
sterryfamily
Guest
You may argue that we don’t know exactly what the apostles taught, but one cannot argue that, by the evidence in their letters, this is not what the early Christians understood by the apostle’s teachings. It is more clear than crystal.Hi Sterry,
That is the thing it is not crystal clear that that is what the Apostles taught.
I will assume your yes meant you want me to look into it further.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I see you posted these lies in both forums.
M
mrs_abbott
Guest
Since when are they lies? You asked for what her church believed and she gave it to you.I see you posted these lies in both forums.
She doesn’t belong to the CC so of course they’re going to be different than what you believe.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not referring to what her church believes, but rather to the parts on “Romanism” being “invented” during the Middle Ages (probably related to the same people who think that the first Pope was Pope St. Boniface III (The Third) - I’ve always wondered whether they think his Mom named him “Boniface The Third.”
)
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
What years were the middle ages anyway?Not referring to what her church believes, but rather to the parts on “Romanism” being “invented” during the Middle Ages (probably related to the same people who think that the first Pope was Pope St. Boniface III (The Third) - I’ve always wondered whether they think his Mom named him “Boniface The Third.”
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Yeah sorry. I started here but got no response so I put it in the other thread.I see you posted these lies in both forums.
J
jmcrae
Guest
From the fall of the Roman Empire to the “Enlightenment” period (which refers to the beginnings of experimental science), so from somewhere in the 500s AD until somewhere in the 1400s.
- Status